On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote: > + spin_lock(&c->wbuf_dwork_lock); > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&c->wbuf_dwork);
Umm... Usually ..._sync in function name is a sign of potential sleeper, and calling those under a spinlock is a bad idea. And looking at the definition of cancel_delayed_work_sync() turns up the following call chain: cancel_delayed_work_sync() -> __cancel_work_timer() -> flush_work() -> wait_for_completion(), which definitely isn't something you should ever do under a spinlock. While we are at it, you follow that with > + c->wbuf_queued = 0; > + spin_lock(&c->wbuf_dwork_lock); which would be broken even if cancel_delayed_work_sync() hadn't blocked. That's easily fixed, of course, (s/lock/unlock/). cancel_delayed_work_sync() under a spinlock is more serious... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
